Women compete in different sports leagues because of differences in physical strength and endurance, which is an entirely separate and unrelated issue to sexual relations between genders and the moral issues surrounding it. This is a complete non sequitur. If your thoughts are this disorganized, no wonder to subscribe to backward and irrational beliefs.

My point is that women are inherently different from man, so you cannot always give them an identical standard. You yourself have said women are physically weaker than men, thus how can they compete with men in the same sports league? Likewise, women’s body is more sexual in nature compared to men’s body…

What is your evidence for that statement? And what do you mean by “sexual”? If you mean more likely to arouse desire, you are offering opinion, nothing more. Do not assert your opinions and value judgements as though they were natural laws. A woman’s body might be more likely to arouse desire in you, if you are a heterosexual male, but you are not everybody. If, by sexual, you mean more prone to engage in sexual activity, show me some proof, real, scientific proof, that women have a more active libido. Given how much more ready men seem to be to have casual sex, I would say the opposite is more likely.

Talha777 - 03 October 2007 04:05 PM

...therefore they have to cover their entire body with veil in public, whereas man must also dress modestly. Why in the West, for example, is it considered indecent for women to not wear a shirt but it is not considered indecent for men to do likewise. So how am I being “irrational”? I am just giving you the reality.

No, you are giving the prevailing standards of what is called modesty in one society. There are other societies where nudity is not taboo, and women are as free to go shirtless as men are. Once again, the customs of your little tribe (or ours either for that matter) are not the laws of nature.

Talha777 - 03 October 2007 04:05 PM

Horsecrap. This is a complete BS justification of shutting women up inside a social prison, and rationalizing it by telling yourself that they create their own social network for themselves, and they’re really just as happy there as you are in your circles. You should be ashamed of yourself.
There is no excuse for denying women the opportunity to live in the wider world around them. It is also stupid and counterproductive to deprive your society of the useful talents of half the population.

It seems when you cannot answer a logical argument you resort to emotions and foul language. That is unfortunate and regrettable.

Believe me, when I resort to foul language, you’ll know it, and I haven’t yet. However I will pour scorn on an inexcusably silly idea. Your argument is blatantly self justifying. You sound just like people in the antebellum south in America arguing that slavery was good for blacks, and many of them actually preferred being taken care of to being free. That was and inexcusably rationilazation of a moral outrage, and so is what you are spewing.

I am the very model of a Christian Evangelical
I’ve no need for courtesy when fighting things heretical
I know the bible word for word; you’ll find me pedagogical
I have my faith so I’ve no need for ideas that are logical
Atheists and Pagans fall before my wit satirical
They’ll burn in hell just as they should; their cries will be so lyrical
I’m always right, you’re always wrong, my reasoning’s dogmatical
For I’m the very model of a Christian Evangelical

From a religion that promotes the tenets of Convert, subjugate, or kill ALL unbelievers.

Where does Islam say to kill all disbelievers?

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”

Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”

Qur’an:47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

Likewise, women’s body is more sexual in nature compared to men’s body, therefore they have to cover their entire body with veil in public, whereas man must also dress modestly.

You are saying that from a man’s perspective. It is a man’s opinion, a statement of a man’s desires. Maybe a woman would say the opposite, that a man’s body is more sexual in nature than a woman’s?

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors (2.190)

This is the proper context of the verses you have quoted. They are dealing with the subject of war. In war you kill your enemies. But it is also necessary to understand under what circumstances Muslims can engage in war, and these circumstances are laid down in the verse I quoted above.

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression (2.193)

And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!” (4.75)

This verse also makes it clear that the Holy Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa salaam was commanded to fight in the cause of Allah to deliver his community which was being ill-treated and needed to be rescued from the cruelty of their enemies.
Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (4.90)

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (8.61)

In conclusion, the Holy Quran commands Muslims to fight their enemies who make war against them, but if the enemy has a change of heart and inclines toward peace, Muslims must also.

Talha: You are quoting different verses to prove mine aren’t interpreted correctly. If you were putting them in context, you would be quoting the verses I quoted, along with those before and after. Instead, you quote entirely different passages.

You quoted nothing anywhere near Qur’an:9:5, or Ishaq:324, or Qur’an:47:4, or any of the other verses I quoted.

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

A woman’s whole entire body is too sexual for you to control yourself over? Her head, chin, wrists, ankles, ears—everything? What’s wrong with you? Are you aware that billions of men worldwide do not suffer from your lack of self-control? They interact with unveiled women all the time, and without assaulting them in any way. There are also billions of women worldwide who find a man’s bare chest highly sexual, yet do not assault him or damn him for revealing it. You have no logical justification for the standards you support. None. Unless you count your own lack of maturity, which I certainly do.

It’s worth noting that there are tribes that, to this day, feature women whose breasts are left bare at all times, yet it seems not to have done them any harm. Except that they’re rather droppy after a few years, of course .

Look at what dating and sex culture has done to christians’s family and marriages. It has taken away love and committment from relationships, promoted promiscuity, adultry, sexual experimentations, pre-marital sex, divorces, abortions, family break ups, child custody battles, foster homes for childern, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, rapes, date-violence, pornography, teen-sex, teen-pragnancies and what not. Society has lost norms to hold them in check. It has brought violence and suffering to millions of people.

Some of those things are “so what?” to me. Some of them are examples of people maiking wrong decisions and correcting them (divorce). Some of them involve people seeking happiness or sexual satisfaction in ways you disapprove of, but you haven’t proven that they are wrong. Others, your own culture of female opression actually endorses or encourages (teen sex and pregnancy, rape, violence against women). You are making criticisms of Western culture that apply even more so to yours.

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

Look at what dating and sex culture has done to christians’s family and marriages. It has taken away love and committment from relationships, promoted promiscuity, adultry, sexual experimentations, pre-marital sex, divorces, abortions, family break ups, child custody battles, foster homes for childern, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, rapes, date-violence, pornography, teen-sex, teen-pragnancies and what not. Society has lost norms to hold them in check. It has brought violence and suffering to millions of people.

Actually, no, it’s merely made these things more open. What makes you think people were any better at choosing a life-partner fifty or a hundred years ago than they are now? What makes you think love and commitment was more common then. Back then, at least in America, divorce was very stigmatized (and this conception came from Christianity, and Christ’s proclamations that one who married after getting divorced was committing adultery). The result was that people simply stayed in bad marriages and were unhappy more often than they do now. Or they found happiness illicitly by taking lovers or mistresses. You really think that was better?

And as for the rest of your list… what’s wrong with premarital sex between consenting adults? What’s better for a child, growing up with one parent and seeing the other one every weekend, or living in a home with both of them, where they are miserable, can’t stand each other, and fight all the time? And we’ve already dealt with your BS about sexual harassment. It’s not more common now, it’s just more reported now because women are more equal and don’t have to tolerate it to the extent they once did. The same is true of rapes—it’s more reported now, but it’s not more common. Same goes for child sexual abuse. And you have made no connection between those crimes and the culture of dating and marriage by choice. You are talking through your hat.

I am the very model of a Christian Evangelical
I’ve no need for courtesy when fighting things heretical
I know the bible word for word; you’ll find me pedagogical
I have my faith so I’ve no need for ideas that are logical
Atheists and Pagans fall before my wit satirical
They’ll burn in hell just as they should; their cries will be so lyrical
I’m always right, you’re always wrong, my reasoning’s dogmatical
For I’m the very model of a Christian Evangelical

Look at what dating and sex culture has done to christians’s family and marriages. It has taken away love and committment from relationships, promoted promiscuity, adultry, sexual experimentations, pre-marital sex, divorces, abortions, family break ups, child custody battles, foster homes for childern, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, rapes, date-violence, pornography, teen-sex, teen-pragnancies and what not. Society has lost norms to hold them in check. It has brought violence and suffering to millions of people.

I would rather have a culture in which some marriages end in divorce, in which sexual experimentation is permitted (between consenting adults), in which people can seek love on their own terms, than a culture in which the freedom of half of the society is non-existent, in which marriage isn’t for love but for the benefit of and at the discretion of only men.

Are you saying there is no abuse in Islamic culture? No violence? No rape? No teen sex? No teen pregnancies? Probably there is less of some of these things, because the punishment for the woman could be death. This is not a society. It is a prison.

Talha: You are quoting different verses to prove mine aren’t interpreted correctly. If you were putting them in context, you would be quoting the verses I quoted, along with those before and after. Instead, you quote entirely different passages.

You quoted nothing anywhere near Qur’an:9:5, or Ishaq:324, or Qur’an:47:4, or any of the other verses I quoted.

The Holy Quran is to be interpreted as a whole. Unfortunately you do not understand the unique style of the Holy Quran, you are giving it the same standard as any other book,

Such as We send down for those who make division, those who break the Quran into parts. (15.90-91)

You see the Holy Quran itself says that it must be followed as a whole, when interpreting the Holy Quran the first basis of interpretation is to let the verses explain and clarify eachother.

Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. (4.82)

So you see, the Holy Quran must be considered with great care, because otherwise one will be confused and bewildered. It must be understood as a whole, not interpreted through isolated passages.

Now as to the verses you specifically mentioned. First of all what is Ishaq 324? Is that part of the Quran?

As to 9.5, the context can be discerned from the beginning of the surah (chapter):

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty (9.1)

You see already this verse you quoted needs to be understood in its proper historical context. It is dealing with the dissolution of a ceasefire treaty between the Muslims and their enemies, the idolotrous arabs of Makka. The treaty was dissolved because it was the idolators who violated it. However, the same surah instructs the Muslims not to wage war with those idolators who did not violate a treaty:

Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). (9.4)

So to quote the verse as you did (9.5) and to say that it commands Muslims to wage endless war against non-Muslims and kill them all and subjugate them is simply false and dishonest on your part. It is in the context of war, the conditions for which have been laid down in a multitude of verses of the Holy Quran as well as in this very surah, in the four verses which precedes this verse.

Once again tal - Your “holy” book can be changed anytime. Making it up as you go along
I would really like to be able to tell people what to do and how to live according to a book that I can change anytime I want, but, it’s being done right now through islam.

Kope - You don’t have the right to say anything about child sexual abuse when the leader of your gang of thugs married a 9 year old girl (we all know who I’m talking about).

So Talha, how are we really supposed to know that YOURS is the correct interpretation, and not just a big smelly, steaming pile of taqiya? And what about all those moslims who interpret it the way I did? It is very clear that many do. How will you convince them that they are wrong? I believe, quite sincerely, that if you try, they will probably want to kill you. I judge the religion on the actions of its believers.

It doesn’t matter anyway. Belief in Islam is, like all religious belief, based on faith. Its all worthless anyway. We need to come to understand the world around us using reason, and use reason to discover an ethical system for living in this world.

And no matter how you interpret it, there is clearly no room for an individualist like me in your religion.

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.